VP Debate Wrap Up: The Good, The Bad, and the Flat-Out Wrong
Rather than relive every minute of last night’s debate, we’ve decided to give you a collection of the best of the best Social Security and Medicare debate analysis, from a variety of sources. First, from NCPSSM’s President/CEO, Max Richtman:
“Finally, the American people were allowed a glimpse into what our Presidential tickets, represented by their Vice Presidential candidates in last night’s debate, have in mind for Social Security and Medicare. Their differences couldn’t be starker. However, what wasn’t said last night is the indisputable fact that Social Security is not in crisis, it’s not broke and it’s not bankrupt. The moderator’s incorrect premise followed by the candidates’ validating responses ignored the demonstrable facts that must be the starting point for any Social Security discussion. Social Security has $2.7 trillion in its trust fund; it will pay full benefits until 2033 and 75% of full benefits after that. By no definition can that be considered bankrupt or in crisis.
When it comes to Medicare, the differences have been laid out clearly—and Joe Biden is right. The Romney/Ryan “CouponCare” plan eliminates the guarantee of Medicare and takes us back to the days when seniors were at the mercy of private insurance companies for their health care. Seniors will pay more for less and while Rep. Ryan makes claims of increased choice, his privatized Medicare plan will actually make it much harder for seniors to choose their own doctor.
But with just two more debates and a few weeks until Election Day there’s only a short time left for candidates to finally ditch the political propaganda and mistruths and start giving it to us straight. The American people deserve the truth about Social Security and Medicare proposals which will impact the lives of millions of middle-class families for generations.” … Max Richtman, President/CEO, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare
Think Progress and Dean Baker at CEPR also picked up on how one really terrible question helped Paul Ryan mislead viewers :
“RADDATZ: Let’s talk about Medicare and entitlements. Both Medicare and Social Security are going broke and taking a larger share of the budget in the process. Will benefits for Americans under these programs have to change for the programs to survive? Mr. Ryan.
RYAN: Absolutely. Medicare and Social Security are going bankrupt. These are indisputable facts.
The media consistently fuel the misconception that Social Security is bankrupt or going broke, whipping itself into a frenzy of doomsday scenarios and asking politicians when they will deal with this supposedly grave threat to the U.S. budget. However, Social Security can pay full benefits until 2037, and nearly full benefits for years after that, even if literally nothing is done to change the program. Reporters would surely be shocked if infrastructure projects, child nutrition programs, or any other federal effort were fully funded for more than two decades, but no credit is given to lawmakers for achieving just that with Social Security.” Think Progress, October 12, 2012
“Polls consistently show that a majority of young people believe that they stand to get nothing back from Social Security when they retire. That is of course not true unless Congress were to vote to eliminate the program. Under the latest projections they would stand to get a larger benefit than current retirees even if nothing is ever done to change the program’s finances. It is unlikely that listeners would understand this to be the case based on Raddatz’s comment.
It is also unlikely that viewers would have realized that the changes put in place by the Affordable Care Act extended the date when Medicare is first projected to face a shortfall from 2016 to 2024 and reduced the projected shortfall over the program’s 75-year planning period by more than two thirds. The remaining gap could be filled by a tax increase that is less than 2 percent of projected wage growth over the next 30 years.” Beat the Press
Lastly, AFL-CIO Now describes the Romney/Ryan plan for Social Security and Medicare in frightening clear (and completely true) terms:
Last night, we learned vice presidential contender Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and running mate Mitt Romney envision a pretty bleak future for working people. The Romney-Ryan future is one where seniors (part of the 47%) toil until age 70 when they can collect on a woefully inadequate privatized Social Security account—where people must wait until age 67 to receive a coupon (a.k.a. Medicare voucher) for health care. A future where millionaires and billionaires, the richest 2%, continue to receive massive tax cut giveaways at the expense of working people.
Besides Ryan’s support for partial Social Security privatization, we also learned Romney wants to raise the retirement age to 70 and cut Social Security benefits for middle-income workers using the progressive price indexing formula change, which is code for: cutting benefits. According to the Social Security chief actuary, a medium income earner, someone who made $43,000 in 2010, would see substantial benefit cuts under Romney’s plan. For a person retiring in 2030, the cut is $2,396. For a person retiring in 2050, the cut is $4,730.
The choices for middle-class seniors and their families couldn’t be clearer.
If You Can’t Cut Benefits: Cutting the Agency that Distributes Them Is the Next Best Thing
At least that appears to be Congress’ approach on Social Security. Each year, conservatives in Congress propose budgets for the Social Security Administration far below what’s needed to do its job, and far below what the SSA or the President requested from Congress. The effect of that is being felt by American beneficiaries nationwide and has now gotten even worse.
The latest news is that beginning on November 19th, the SSA will close field offices 30 minutes earlier. And starting in January, field offices will close at noon on Wednesdays. This is in addition to the 30 minute cut in operating hours announced just last year. In addition, the mailings of annual statements—which are the SSA’s most effective form of communication sent directly to beneficiaries about their earnings and benefits– will be cut off completely effective October 1st. It’s now up to each beneficiary to go to the SSA’s website to get that information.
Michael Hiltzik at the Los Angeles Times correctly points out the problem with that strategy:
But is that an adequate substitute? No way. For one thing, you have to know that your statement is available via the Internet, you have to know where to find it, and you have to be able to navigate a registration procedure that is not all that user-friendly — especially for someone not familiar with navigating the Web, and double-especially for someone without easy access to a computer. Despite a claim that we all live in the digital world today, those are not small groups.
Importantly, the Social Security Administration has made no discernible effort to proactively advise Americans that the paper statements are a thing of the past. In other words, what was once its most effective outreach to millions of people has disappeared without a trace, or a single word of warning.
Social Security says that if you have problems accessing the online service, you can get help at a Social Security office. Of course, those offices, which used to be open until 4 p.m., are now open only till 3:30. Starting in mid-November, they’ll only be open till 3. And starting Jan. 2, they’ll be closing at noon Wednesdays.
“There’s already an enormous amount of unhappiness for people who walk to their Social Security office and find a sign saying, ‘We closed at 3:30,'” says Webster Phillips, a former Social Security associate commissioner who now works with the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.
Shorter hours, shrinking budgets to manage more beneficiaries, and limited communication with that growing constituency—this is not sound policy. But for conservatives who’ve long promised to allow middle-class programs to “wither on the vine” or shrink small enough “to drown in a bathtub” it is politics as usual. Unfortunately, generations of Americans will ultimately pay the price.
Our Presidential Debate Scorecard Shows Viewers Were the Real Losers
Max Richtman, NCPSSM President/CEO. Originally appeared on Huffington Post.
Presidential debates have long been more about style than substance but this week’s debate has taken us into new territory. Once the event ended and each answer had been parsed and re-parsed by the media and our national punditry class, it’s clear that American voters have been left with the largest collection of misrepresentations, half-truths and political fairy tales in Presidential debate history. This is especially true when you consider the comments and promises made about Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. From President Obama’s still inscrutable comment about Social Security to Mitt Romney’s demonstrably false claims about Medicare, it’s no wonder America’s seniors and their families are left scratching their heads.
49 million Americans depend on Medicare, more than 60 million on Medicaid and 55 million on Social Security. These programs touch the lives of virtually every American family in every community in our nation and are now at the center of a campaign to cut benefits as part of a so-called deficit “grand bargain”. Surely, Americans deserve the full truth about what our Presidential candidates plan for these programs’ futures rather than headlines like these: “Romney Wins on Style, Obama Wins on Facts”, “Mostly Fiction”, “Romney Told 27 Myths in 38 Minutes”, “Romney Goes on Offense, Pays For It in First Wave of Fact-Checks” and “Obama’s Social Security Answer Leaves Democrats Utterly Baffled”.
Here are worst of the myths presented in this first Presidential debate:
Health care reform cuts $716 billion from Medicare.
This is poll-tested rhetoric seen in campaigns nationwide designed to trick seniors into believing their benefits have been cut. Truth is, not one penny of Medicare benefits was cut in the Affordable Care Act. In fact, that money is being used to improve health care and save money for Medicare beneficiaries. These benefits include preventive screenings and services, annual wellness visits and personalized prevention plans with no out-of-pocket costs, as well as discounts on prescription drugs in the Part D coverage gap known as the “donut hole” which will be closed by 2020. Medicare’s solvency has been extended by eight years and in 2012, for the first time ever, the Part B deductible decreased from $162 to $140 per year.
Romney also did not mention that the GOP/Ryan budget he supports also includes these Medicare cuts yet this GOP plan does not reinvest one penny back into the program. Instead, they use that money to pay for tax cuts for millionaires and deficit reduction
Don’t Worry Seniors, My Plan Won’t Impact You.
Not only does this cynical pandering to seniors not work—older Americans know their children and grandchildren will need these programs too– it’s also wrong. Governor Romney promised to repeal “Obamacare” on day one. That means on the first day of his administration seniors would lose free preventive benefits and annual wellness exams, prescription drug and premium costs will increase by hundreds of dollars per year, the Part D donut hole returns, private insurance companies get their taxpayer handouts back, and Medicare would be bankrupt by the end of a Romney first term.
Seniors would also see increased long-term care costs, including increased costs for nursing home care, because of cuts to Medicaid. The Romney/Ryan proposed Medicaid cuts mean a loss of over $2,500 annually for seniors who are dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid.
The Romney/Ryan “CouponCare” plan won’t end traditional Medicare because people can choose Medicare as an option.
Nonsense. Chairman Ryan’s plan sets up a scenario that will put Medicare into a death spiral. This plan calls for private plans to provide benefits that are at least “actuarially equivalent” to the benefit package provided by fee-for-service Medicare, which gives private insurance companies the ability to manipulate their plans to attract the youngest and healthiest seniors. This would leave traditional Medicare with older and sicker beneficiaries whose higher health costs could lead to higher premiums that people would be unable or unwilling to pay, resulting in a death spiral for traditional Medicare. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ (CBPP) reports, “over time, traditional Medicare would become less financially viable and could unravel — not because it was less efficient than the private plans, but because it was competing on an unlevel playing field in which private plans captured the healthier beneficiaries and incurred lower costs as a result.”
Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney understand that it’s politically impossible to pass legislation ending traditional Medicare. However, their “CouponCare” plan is a means to that end by putting traditional Medicare into a fiscally untenable position. Seniors will end up going back in time, to the days before Medicare, where they will once again be at the mercy of private insurance companies. It also makes it harder for seniors to choose their own doctor. Giving them a voucher that loses value over time means older Americans will pay more for less while private insurance companies reap the gains.
This election will likely determine the future of America’s most successful anti-poverty and retirement security programs. Few American families will remain untouched by the decisions the next President and Congress will soon make. It’s really not too much to ask that our candidates ditch the political propaganda and mistruths and start giving it to us straight. The Vice Presidential debate on October 11th is a good place to start.
This Election – A Referendum on Social Security & Medicare
Every once in awhile we read an article that’s so spot-on it’s impossible to pick just one excerpt to share with our readers. Yesterday’s opinion piece by the New York Times’ Paul Krugman is just that type of piece. It’s that good and our “Networthy Award” winner this week.
September 30, 2012
The Real Referendum
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Republicans came into this campaign believing that it would be a referendum on President Obama, and that still-high unemployment would hand them victory on a silver platter. But given the usual caveats — a month can be a long time in politics, it’s not over until the votes are actually counted, and so on — it doesn’t seem to be turning out that way.
Yet there is a sense in which the election is indeed a referendum, but of a different kind. Voters are, in effect, being asked to deliver a verdict on the legacy of the New Deal and the Great Society, on Social Security, Medicare and, yes, Obamacare, which represents an extension of that legacy. Will they vote for politicians who want to replace Medicare with Vouchercare, who denounce Social Security as “collectivist” (as Paul Ryan once did), who dismiss those who turn to social insurance programs as people unwilling to take responsibility for their lives?
If the polls are any indication, the result of that referendum will be a clear reassertion of support for the safety net, and a clear rejection of politicians who want to return us to the Gilded Age. But here’s the question: Will that election result be honored?
I ask that question because we already know what Mr. Obama will face if re-elected: a clamor from Beltway insiders demanding that he immediately return to his failed political strategy of 2011, in which he made a Grand Bargain over the budget deficit his overriding priority. Now is the time, he’ll be told, to fix America’s entitlement problem once and for all. There will be calls — as there were at the time of the Democratic National Convention — for him to officially endorse Simpson-Bowles, the budget proposal issued by the co-chairmen of his deficit commission (although never accepted by the commission as a whole).
And Mr. Obama should just say no, for three reasons.
First, despite years of dire warnings from people like, well, Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, we are not facing any kind of fiscal crisis. Indeed, U.S. borrowing costs are at historic lows, with investors actually willing to pay the government for the privilege of owning inflation-protected bonds. So reducing the budget deficit just isn’t the top priority for America at the moment; creating jobs is. For now, the administration’s political capital should be devoted to passing something like last year’s American Jobs Act and providing effective mortgage debt relief.
Second, contrary to Beltway conventional wisdom, America does not have an “entitlements problem.” Mainly, it has a health cost problem, private as well as public, which must be addressed (and which the Affordable Care Act at least starts to address). It’s true that there’s also, even aside from health care, a gap between the services we’re promising and the taxes we’re collecting — but to call that gap an “entitlements” issue is already to accept the very right-wing frame that voters appear to be in the process of rejecting.
Finally, despite the bizarre reverence it inspires in Beltway insiders — the same people, by the way, who assured us that Paul Ryan was a brave truth-teller — the fact is that Simpson-Bowles is a really bad plan, one that would undermine some key pieces of our safety net. And if a re-elected president were to endorse it, he would be betraying the trust of the voters who returned him to office.
Consider, in particular, the proposal to raise the Social Security retirement age, supposedly to reflect rising life expectancy. This is an idea Washington loves — but it’s also totally at odds with the reality of an America in which rising inequality is reflected not just in the quality of life but in its duration. For while average life expectancy has indeed risen, that increase is confined to the relatively well-off and well-educated — the very people who need Social Security least. Meanwhile, life expectancy is actually falling for a substantial part of the nation.
Now, there’s no mystery about why Simpson-Bowles looks the way it does. It was put together in a political environment in which progressives, and even supporters of the safety net as we know it, were very much on the defensive — an environment in which conservatives were presumed to be in the ascendant, and in which bipartisanship was effectively defined as the effort to broker deals between the center-right and the hard right.
Barring an upset, however, that environment will come to an end on Nov. 6. This election is, as I said, shaping up as a referendum on our social insurance system, and it looks as if Mr. Obama will emerge with a clear mandate for preserving and extending that system. It would be a terrible mistake, both politically and for the nation’s future, for him to let himself be talked into snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
**The only thing we’d add to this wonderful piece is that this “we must cut benefits” environment didn’t happen organically. It’s the product of a billion dollar campaign funded by former Nixon Commerce Secretary, multi-billionaire, and anti-entitlement scold Pete Peterson, to persuade Washington that we can’t afford America’s safety net. This campaign is years in the making and its funding has branched out to virtually every one of the so-called “non-partisan” groups who’ve dutifully written reports calling for benefit cuts, the media including the Washington Post, and has even provided staff for the Fiscal Commission. In fact, the first question any journalist or reader of one of these reports should be asking is…”Is your organization funded by Pete Peterson?”. The answer would shock you.
Romney/Ryan Losing Senior Vote as CouponCare Details Revealed
It appears the Romney/Ryan plan to privatize Medicare is on the same trajectory as President Bush’s failed Social Security privatization road show in 2005. The more the American people learn about these privatization schemes the less they like them. New polling released this week show that no matter how ending traditional Medicare is spun…Americans simply don’t support it.
It also shows that the GOP strategy of telling seniors “don’t worry we won’t touch you” doesn’t work. Why? Because the “greedy geezer” mythology that underpins this cynical ploy does not represent the average American senior. Retirees have said time and again, they want retirement security for their children and grandchildren just as much as for themselves.
New polling by Reuters/Ipsos indicates that during the past two weeks – since just after the Democratic National Convention – support for Romney among Americans age 60 and older has crumbled, from a 20-point lead over Democratic President Barack Obama to less than 4 points.
Romney’s double-digit advantages among older voters on the issues of healthcare and Medicare – the nation’s health insurance program for those over 65 and the disabled – also have evaporated, and Obama has begun to build an advantage in both areas. Reuters, September 24
These results aren’t an anomaly and mirror what Pew Research also found this month:
A Pew poll, conducted September 12-16 and released last week, showed Romney with only a 47 to 46 percent lead among registered voters aged 65-plus. He also trailed Obama by 7 points among people aged 45 to 64 – a huge potential voting bloc that analysts say is increasingly concerned about retirement security.
To illustrate the challenge that Romney could face in November, analysts note that Republican John McCain won 53 percent of the vote among those 65 and older in 2008, and lost to Obama with 46 percent of the overall vote.”This is certainly a bit of a game changer,” Ipsos pollster Julia Clark said of the increasing support for Obama among older Americans. “Older individuals vote. They’re the ones who turn up on Election Day, for sure.” Pew Research Center, September 19
This is exactly why the GOP’s political strategy was to avoid a full conversation of the Romney/Ryan voucher plan for Medicare during this campaign entirely, instructing their candidates to dodge and deflect to a rehash of health care reform instead. However, as our President/CEO, Max Richtman, predicted this summer:
“what this divert and deflect strategy ignores is how much easier it was to fool voters before the ACA was implemented. I predict this year will be different. It’s simply a lot harder now to believe a political candidate who’s telling you your Medicare benefits were slashed when you remember taking your $250 drug rebate check to the bank, you paid $600 less in drug costs this year, didn’t fall into the donut hole, and received your first free mammogram in Medicare. Now that seniors are seeing first hand their benefits were not cut, and were in fact improved, this Medicare myth can finally be laid to rest next to the infamous (and also false) “death panels” claim made by Republicans.
The GOP “Obamacare Robs Medicare” myth will finally be exposed and with the selection of Paul Ryan it should get the national attention needed to put a stop to it once and for all. Just as with President Bush’s campaign to privatize Social Security, the more the American people find out what the Ryan/GOP plan for Medicare contains the less they’ll like it. That process has just begun and it will be a real eye-opener for the millions of American retirees who continue to be the targets of one of most cynical Mediscare campaigns in political history.” Max Richtman, President/CEO, Huffington Post Oped
VP Debate Wrap Up: The Good, The Bad, and the Flat-Out Wrong
Rather than relive every minute of last night’s debate, we’ve decided to give you a collection of the best of the best Social Security and Medicare debate analysis, from a variety of sources. First, from NCPSSM’s President/CEO, Max Richtman:
“Finally, the American people were allowed a glimpse into what our Presidential tickets, represented by their Vice Presidential candidates in last night’s debate, have in mind for Social Security and Medicare. Their differences couldn’t be starker. However, what wasn’t said last night is the indisputable fact that Social Security is not in crisis, it’s not broke and it’s not bankrupt. The moderator’s incorrect premise followed by the candidates’ validating responses ignored the demonstrable facts that must be the starting point for any Social Security discussion. Social Security has $2.7 trillion in its trust fund; it will pay full benefits until 2033 and 75% of full benefits after that. By no definition can that be considered bankrupt or in crisis.
When it comes to Medicare, the differences have been laid out clearly—and Joe Biden is right. The Romney/Ryan “CouponCare” plan eliminates the guarantee of Medicare and takes us back to the days when seniors were at the mercy of private insurance companies for their health care. Seniors will pay more for less and while Rep. Ryan makes claims of increased choice, his privatized Medicare plan will actually make it much harder for seniors to choose their own doctor.
But with just two more debates and a few weeks until Election Day there’s only a short time left for candidates to finally ditch the political propaganda and mistruths and start giving it to us straight. The American people deserve the truth about Social Security and Medicare proposals which will impact the lives of millions of middle-class families for generations.” … Max Richtman, President/CEO, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare
Think Progress and Dean Baker at CEPR also picked up on how one really terrible question helped Paul Ryan mislead viewers :
“RADDATZ: Let’s talk about Medicare and entitlements. Both Medicare and Social Security are going broke and taking a larger share of the budget in the process. Will benefits for Americans under these programs have to change for the programs to survive? Mr. Ryan.
RYAN: Absolutely. Medicare and Social Security are going bankrupt. These are indisputable facts.
The media consistently fuel the misconception that Social Security is bankrupt or going broke, whipping itself into a frenzy of doomsday scenarios and asking politicians when they will deal with this supposedly grave threat to the U.S. budget. However, Social Security can pay full benefits until 2037, and nearly full benefits for years after that, even if literally nothing is done to change the program. Reporters would surely be shocked if infrastructure projects, child nutrition programs, or any other federal effort were fully funded for more than two decades, but no credit is given to lawmakers for achieving just that with Social Security.” Think Progress, October 12, 2012
“Polls consistently show that a majority of young people believe that they stand to get nothing back from Social Security when they retire. That is of course not true unless Congress were to vote to eliminate the program. Under the latest projections they would stand to get a larger benefit than current retirees even if nothing is ever done to change the program’s finances. It is unlikely that listeners would understand this to be the case based on Raddatz’s comment.
It is also unlikely that viewers would have realized that the changes put in place by the Affordable Care Act extended the date when Medicare is first projected to face a shortfall from 2016 to 2024 and reduced the projected shortfall over the program’s 75-year planning period by more than two thirds. The remaining gap could be filled by a tax increase that is less than 2 percent of projected wage growth over the next 30 years.” Beat the Press
Lastly, AFL-CIO Now describes the Romney/Ryan plan for Social Security and Medicare in frightening clear (and completely true) terms:
Last night, we learned vice presidential contender Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and running mate Mitt Romney envision a pretty bleak future for working people. The Romney-Ryan future is one where seniors (part of the 47%) toil until age 70 when they can collect on a woefully inadequate privatized Social Security account—where people must wait until age 67 to receive a coupon (a.k.a. Medicare voucher) for health care. A future where millionaires and billionaires, the richest 2%, continue to receive massive tax cut giveaways at the expense of working people.
Besides Ryan’s support for partial Social Security privatization, we also learned Romney wants to raise the retirement age to 70 and cut Social Security benefits for middle-income workers using the progressive price indexing formula change, which is code for: cutting benefits. According to the Social Security chief actuary, a medium income earner, someone who made $43,000 in 2010, would see substantial benefit cuts under Romney’s plan. For a person retiring in 2030, the cut is $2,396. For a person retiring in 2050, the cut is $4,730.
The choices for middle-class seniors and their families couldn’t be clearer.
If You Can’t Cut Benefits: Cutting the Agency that Distributes Them Is the Next Best Thing
At least that appears to be Congress’ approach on Social Security. Each year, conservatives in Congress propose budgets for the Social Security Administration far below what’s needed to do its job, and far below what the SSA or the President requested from Congress. The effect of that is being felt by American beneficiaries nationwide and has now gotten even worse.
The latest news is that beginning on November 19th, the SSA will close field offices 30 minutes earlier. And starting in January, field offices will close at noon on Wednesdays. This is in addition to the 30 minute cut in operating hours announced just last year. In addition, the mailings of annual statements—which are the SSA’s most effective form of communication sent directly to beneficiaries about their earnings and benefits– will be cut off completely effective October 1st. It’s now up to each beneficiary to go to the SSA’s website to get that information.
Michael Hiltzik at the Los Angeles Times correctly points out the problem with that strategy:
But is that an adequate substitute? No way. For one thing, you have to know that your statement is available via the Internet, you have to know where to find it, and you have to be able to navigate a registration procedure that is not all that user-friendly — especially for someone not familiar with navigating the Web, and double-especially for someone without easy access to a computer. Despite a claim that we all live in the digital world today, those are not small groups.
Importantly, the Social Security Administration has made no discernible effort to proactively advise Americans that the paper statements are a thing of the past. In other words, what was once its most effective outreach to millions of people has disappeared without a trace, or a single word of warning.
Social Security says that if you have problems accessing the online service, you can get help at a Social Security office. Of course, those offices, which used to be open until 4 p.m., are now open only till 3:30. Starting in mid-November, they’ll only be open till 3. And starting Jan. 2, they’ll be closing at noon Wednesdays.
“There’s already an enormous amount of unhappiness for people who walk to their Social Security office and find a sign saying, ‘We closed at 3:30,'” says Webster Phillips, a former Social Security associate commissioner who now works with the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.
Shorter hours, shrinking budgets to manage more beneficiaries, and limited communication with that growing constituency—this is not sound policy. But for conservatives who’ve long promised to allow middle-class programs to “wither on the vine” or shrink small enough “to drown in a bathtub” it is politics as usual. Unfortunately, generations of Americans will ultimately pay the price.
Our Presidential Debate Scorecard Shows Viewers Were the Real Losers
Max Richtman, NCPSSM President/CEO. Originally appeared on Huffington Post.
Presidential debates have long been more about style than substance but this week’s debate has taken us into new territory. Once the event ended and each answer had been parsed and re-parsed by the media and our national punditry class, it’s clear that American voters have been left with the largest collection of misrepresentations, half-truths and political fairy tales in Presidential debate history. This is especially true when you consider the comments and promises made about Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. From President Obama’s still inscrutable comment about Social Security to Mitt Romney’s demonstrably false claims about Medicare, it’s no wonder America’s seniors and their families are left scratching their heads.
49 million Americans depend on Medicare, more than 60 million on Medicaid and 55 million on Social Security. These programs touch the lives of virtually every American family in every community in our nation and are now at the center of a campaign to cut benefits as part of a so-called deficit “grand bargain”. Surely, Americans deserve the full truth about what our Presidential candidates plan for these programs’ futures rather than headlines like these: “Romney Wins on Style, Obama Wins on Facts”, “Mostly Fiction”, “Romney Told 27 Myths in 38 Minutes”, “Romney Goes on Offense, Pays For It in First Wave of Fact-Checks” and “Obama’s Social Security Answer Leaves Democrats Utterly Baffled”.
Here are worst of the myths presented in this first Presidential debate:
Health care reform cuts $716 billion from Medicare.
This is poll-tested rhetoric seen in campaigns nationwide designed to trick seniors into believing their benefits have been cut. Truth is, not one penny of Medicare benefits was cut in the Affordable Care Act. In fact, that money is being used to improve health care and save money for Medicare beneficiaries. These benefits include preventive screenings and services, annual wellness visits and personalized prevention plans with no out-of-pocket costs, as well as discounts on prescription drugs in the Part D coverage gap known as the “donut hole” which will be closed by 2020. Medicare’s solvency has been extended by eight years and in 2012, for the first time ever, the Part B deductible decreased from $162 to $140 per year.
Romney also did not mention that the GOP/Ryan budget he supports also includes these Medicare cuts yet this GOP plan does not reinvest one penny back into the program. Instead, they use that money to pay for tax cuts for millionaires and deficit reduction
Don’t Worry Seniors, My Plan Won’t Impact You.
Not only does this cynical pandering to seniors not work—older Americans know their children and grandchildren will need these programs too– it’s also wrong. Governor Romney promised to repeal “Obamacare” on day one. That means on the first day of his administration seniors would lose free preventive benefits and annual wellness exams, prescription drug and premium costs will increase by hundreds of dollars per year, the Part D donut hole returns, private insurance companies get their taxpayer handouts back, and Medicare would be bankrupt by the end of a Romney first term.
Seniors would also see increased long-term care costs, including increased costs for nursing home care, because of cuts to Medicaid. The Romney/Ryan proposed Medicaid cuts mean a loss of over $2,500 annually for seniors who are dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid.
The Romney/Ryan “CouponCare” plan won’t end traditional Medicare because people can choose Medicare as an option.
Nonsense. Chairman Ryan’s plan sets up a scenario that will put Medicare into a death spiral. This plan calls for private plans to provide benefits that are at least “actuarially equivalent” to the benefit package provided by fee-for-service Medicare, which gives private insurance companies the ability to manipulate their plans to attract the youngest and healthiest seniors. This would leave traditional Medicare with older and sicker beneficiaries whose higher health costs could lead to higher premiums that people would be unable or unwilling to pay, resulting in a death spiral for traditional Medicare. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ (CBPP) reports, “over time, traditional Medicare would become less financially viable and could unravel — not because it was less efficient than the private plans, but because it was competing on an unlevel playing field in which private plans captured the healthier beneficiaries and incurred lower costs as a result.”
Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney understand that it’s politically impossible to pass legislation ending traditional Medicare. However, their “CouponCare” plan is a means to that end by putting traditional Medicare into a fiscally untenable position. Seniors will end up going back in time, to the days before Medicare, where they will once again be at the mercy of private insurance companies. It also makes it harder for seniors to choose their own doctor. Giving them a voucher that loses value over time means older Americans will pay more for less while private insurance companies reap the gains.
This election will likely determine the future of America’s most successful anti-poverty and retirement security programs. Few American families will remain untouched by the decisions the next President and Congress will soon make. It’s really not too much to ask that our candidates ditch the political propaganda and mistruths and start giving it to us straight. The Vice Presidential debate on October 11th is a good place to start.
This Election – A Referendum on Social Security & Medicare
Every once in awhile we read an article that’s so spot-on it’s impossible to pick just one excerpt to share with our readers. Yesterday’s opinion piece by the New York Times’ Paul Krugman is just that type of piece. It’s that good and our “Networthy Award” winner this week.
September 30, 2012
The Real Referendum
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Republicans came into this campaign believing that it would be a referendum on President Obama, and that still-high unemployment would hand them victory on a silver platter. But given the usual caveats — a month can be a long time in politics, it’s not over until the votes are actually counted, and so on — it doesn’t seem to be turning out that way.
Yet there is a sense in which the election is indeed a referendum, but of a different kind. Voters are, in effect, being asked to deliver a verdict on the legacy of the New Deal and the Great Society, on Social Security, Medicare and, yes, Obamacare, which represents an extension of that legacy. Will they vote for politicians who want to replace Medicare with Vouchercare, who denounce Social Security as “collectivist” (as Paul Ryan once did), who dismiss those who turn to social insurance programs as people unwilling to take responsibility for their lives?
If the polls are any indication, the result of that referendum will be a clear reassertion of support for the safety net, and a clear rejection of politicians who want to return us to the Gilded Age. But here’s the question: Will that election result be honored?
I ask that question because we already know what Mr. Obama will face if re-elected: a clamor from Beltway insiders demanding that he immediately return to his failed political strategy of 2011, in which he made a Grand Bargain over the budget deficit his overriding priority. Now is the time, he’ll be told, to fix America’s entitlement problem once and for all. There will be calls — as there were at the time of the Democratic National Convention — for him to officially endorse Simpson-Bowles, the budget proposal issued by the co-chairmen of his deficit commission (although never accepted by the commission as a whole).
And Mr. Obama should just say no, for three reasons.
First, despite years of dire warnings from people like, well, Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, we are not facing any kind of fiscal crisis. Indeed, U.S. borrowing costs are at historic lows, with investors actually willing to pay the government for the privilege of owning inflation-protected bonds. So reducing the budget deficit just isn’t the top priority for America at the moment; creating jobs is. For now, the administration’s political capital should be devoted to passing something like last year’s American Jobs Act and providing effective mortgage debt relief.
Second, contrary to Beltway conventional wisdom, America does not have an “entitlements problem.” Mainly, it has a health cost problem, private as well as public, which must be addressed (and which the Affordable Care Act at least starts to address). It’s true that there’s also, even aside from health care, a gap between the services we’re promising and the taxes we’re collecting — but to call that gap an “entitlements” issue is already to accept the very right-wing frame that voters appear to be in the process of rejecting.
Finally, despite the bizarre reverence it inspires in Beltway insiders — the same people, by the way, who assured us that Paul Ryan was a brave truth-teller — the fact is that Simpson-Bowles is a really bad plan, one that would undermine some key pieces of our safety net. And if a re-elected president were to endorse it, he would be betraying the trust of the voters who returned him to office.
Consider, in particular, the proposal to raise the Social Security retirement age, supposedly to reflect rising life expectancy. This is an idea Washington loves — but it’s also totally at odds with the reality of an America in which rising inequality is reflected not just in the quality of life but in its duration. For while average life expectancy has indeed risen, that increase is confined to the relatively well-off and well-educated — the very people who need Social Security least. Meanwhile, life expectancy is actually falling for a substantial part of the nation.
Now, there’s no mystery about why Simpson-Bowles looks the way it does. It was put together in a political environment in which progressives, and even supporters of the safety net as we know it, were very much on the defensive — an environment in which conservatives were presumed to be in the ascendant, and in which bipartisanship was effectively defined as the effort to broker deals between the center-right and the hard right.
Barring an upset, however, that environment will come to an end on Nov. 6. This election is, as I said, shaping up as a referendum on our social insurance system, and it looks as if Mr. Obama will emerge with a clear mandate for preserving and extending that system. It would be a terrible mistake, both politically and for the nation’s future, for him to let himself be talked into snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
**The only thing we’d add to this wonderful piece is that this “we must cut benefits” environment didn’t happen organically. It’s the product of a billion dollar campaign funded by former Nixon Commerce Secretary, multi-billionaire, and anti-entitlement scold Pete Peterson, to persuade Washington that we can’t afford America’s safety net. This campaign is years in the making and its funding has branched out to virtually every one of the so-called “non-partisan” groups who’ve dutifully written reports calling for benefit cuts, the media including the Washington Post, and has even provided staff for the Fiscal Commission. In fact, the first question any journalist or reader of one of these reports should be asking is…”Is your organization funded by Pete Peterson?”. The answer would shock you.
Romney/Ryan Losing Senior Vote as CouponCare Details Revealed
It appears the Romney/Ryan plan to privatize Medicare is on the same trajectory as President Bush’s failed Social Security privatization road show in 2005. The more the American people learn about these privatization schemes the less they like them. New polling released this week show that no matter how ending traditional Medicare is spun…Americans simply don’t support it.
It also shows that the GOP strategy of telling seniors “don’t worry we won’t touch you” doesn’t work. Why? Because the “greedy geezer” mythology that underpins this cynical ploy does not represent the average American senior. Retirees have said time and again, they want retirement security for their children and grandchildren just as much as for themselves.
New polling by Reuters/Ipsos indicates that during the past two weeks – since just after the Democratic National Convention – support for Romney among Americans age 60 and older has crumbled, from a 20-point lead over Democratic President Barack Obama to less than 4 points.
Romney’s double-digit advantages among older voters on the issues of healthcare and Medicare – the nation’s health insurance program for those over 65 and the disabled – also have evaporated, and Obama has begun to build an advantage in both areas. Reuters, September 24
These results aren’t an anomaly and mirror what Pew Research also found this month:
A Pew poll, conducted September 12-16 and released last week, showed Romney with only a 47 to 46 percent lead among registered voters aged 65-plus. He also trailed Obama by 7 points among people aged 45 to 64 – a huge potential voting bloc that analysts say is increasingly concerned about retirement security.
To illustrate the challenge that Romney could face in November, analysts note that Republican John McCain won 53 percent of the vote among those 65 and older in 2008, and lost to Obama with 46 percent of the overall vote.”This is certainly a bit of a game changer,” Ipsos pollster Julia Clark said of the increasing support for Obama among older Americans. “Older individuals vote. They’re the ones who turn up on Election Day, for sure.” Pew Research Center, September 19
This is exactly why the GOP’s political strategy was to avoid a full conversation of the Romney/Ryan voucher plan for Medicare during this campaign entirely, instructing their candidates to dodge and deflect to a rehash of health care reform instead. However, as our President/CEO, Max Richtman, predicted this summer:
“what this divert and deflect strategy ignores is how much easier it was to fool voters before the ACA was implemented. I predict this year will be different. It’s simply a lot harder now to believe a political candidate who’s telling you your Medicare benefits were slashed when you remember taking your $250 drug rebate check to the bank, you paid $600 less in drug costs this year, didn’t fall into the donut hole, and received your first free mammogram in Medicare. Now that seniors are seeing first hand their benefits were not cut, and were in fact improved, this Medicare myth can finally be laid to rest next to the infamous (and also false) “death panels” claim made by Republicans.
The GOP “Obamacare Robs Medicare” myth will finally be exposed and with the selection of Paul Ryan it should get the national attention needed to put a stop to it once and for all. Just as with President Bush’s campaign to privatize Social Security, the more the American people find out what the Ryan/GOP plan for Medicare contains the less they’ll like it. That process has just begun and it will be a real eye-opener for the millions of American retirees who continue to be the targets of one of most cynical Mediscare campaigns in political history.” Max Richtman, President/CEO, Huffington Post Oped